I'm sure someone must have asked this but I'm struggling to find it... Apologies if this is a repeat.

Let's take, for example, two weapon attacks. If your Agility is 12 you get two attacks at d16 and d14 and can only crit on the primary "on a 20". Does that mean that a d16 will only crit if you have at least a +4 modifier and your total is exactly 20 (i.e. a roll of 16 with a +4 modifier = 20 but if your modifier was +5 you would actually want to roll a 15?).

There have been several threads about this and no official answer that I'm aware of.

I pointed out on a thread that rolling exactly 20 on a d16 just picks different magic number (whether it is 16 because you have a +4 bonus or 13 because you have a +7 bonus). So that rule by itself doesn't make sense. How I've interpreted is listed below.

{Entering speculation zone}This is my solution for this. DCCRPG may end up doing something else but I think this is consistent and does not require weird exceptional rules.

A normal hit occurs when:The action's resulting value after all modifiers are applied exceeds the target's ACOR You roll the maximum value on the Action die. When this condition is applied you cannot score a critical hit.

A critical hit occurs when:You roll the maximum value on the Action die (20 on a d20, 16 on a d16, etc.)AND the action's resulting value (after all modifiers are applied) must equal or exceed 20AND you have to beat the target AC (can't crit with a miss, see normal hit above).

There have been several threads about this and no official answer that I'm aware of.

I pointed out on a thread that rolling exactly 20 on a d16 just picks different magic number (whether it is 16 because you have a +4 bonus or 13 because you have a +7 bonus). So that rule by itself doesn't make sense. How I've interpreted is listed below.

{Entering speculation zone}This is my solution for this. DCCRPG may end up doing something else but I think this is consistent and does not require weird exceptional rules.

A normal hit occurs when:The action's resulting value after all modifiers are applied exceeds the target's ACOR You roll the maximum value on the Action die. When this condition is applied you cannot score a critical hit.

A critical hit occurs when:You roll the maximum value on the Action die (20 on a d20, 16 on a d16, etc.)AND the action's resulting value (after all modifiers are applied) must equal or exceed 20AND you have to beat the target AC (can't crit with a miss, see normal hit above).

A fumble occurs when:You roll a 1 on the Action die.

Unfortunately, we also have to deal with the fact that some classes have an expanded threat range. Does 19,20 mean you also crit on 15,16 if rolling a d16 and the others are true?

I like a "natural rolls" rule, where the expanded threat range is 16,20 or 14,16,20 if you get to three crit range. Then you can just say any die that lands on one of these results is a crit, regardless of die rolled. This does mean that any character* rolling less than a d20 that is not a warrior will not be getting crit results, which is okay.

*I think Halflings just get the expanded threat range of 16,20 when fighting with two weapons.

There have been several threads about this and no official answer that I'm aware of.

I pointed out on a thread that rolling exactly 20 on a d16 just picks different magic number (whether it is 16 because you have a +4 bonus or 13 because you have a +7 bonus). So that rule by itself doesn't make sense.

Yes, but it is picking a magic number that may not be possible for you to hit which I'm guessing is by design. Unless you have a +4 attack bonus or higher you are choosing to give up the ability to get critical hits if you dual wield.

For dual-wielding, you can crit and that is specifically spelled out, and there are exceptions for the halfling who can crit on a 16. However, when a Warrior (or other class) gets multiple attacks (multiple action dice), I would rule that the second attack cannot crit due to the fact that d14's and d16's have a higher chance of critting.

If I did allow the secondary action dice to crit, it would probably be only on the highest number, i.e., 16 on a d16, and only the warrior could do it.

I can't guess what the rules would be, but that is the thinking I would approach it with.

Yes, but it is picking a magic number that may not be possible for you to hit which I'm guessing is by design. Unless you have a +4 attack bonus or higher you are choosing to give up the ability to get critical hits if you dual wield.

Yes, a choice. Such a terrible thing to contemplate.

I don't see the issue with there being a downside to both sides of a choice: You can use one weapon, with only one chance to hit your target and possibly crit. OR you can use two weapons, with two chances to hit your target but no possible crits. Decide.

Yes, but it is picking a magic number that may not be possible for you to hit which I'm guessing is by design. Unless you have a +4 attack bonus or higher you are choosing to give up the ability to get critical hits if you dual wield.

Yes, a choice. Such a terrible thing to contemplate.

I don't see the issue with there being a downside to both sides of a choice: You can use one weapon, with only one chance to hit your target and possibly crit. OR you can use two weapons, with two chances to hit your target but no possible crits. Decide.

That's what I like about it. I thought using exactly "20" instead of the highest number on the die was rather clever.

That's what I like about it. I thought using exactly "20" instead of the highest number on the die was rather clever.

No, that is not cleaver because it makes a different arbitrary number the "golden" number. The "golden" number should always be obvious when it is rolled. That's why adding the "and the attack must hit AC20" still covers the "20" aspect without the confusion of the "golden" number always changing.

This is why I don't like using dice other than d20 for extra attacks etc. (Unless you have special cases like with the halfling which are easy to use). It's gimmicky for minimal rewards :it's not like their aren't modifiers already, is it really that hard to say I am +1 -4 = -3 to my roll? Probably takes me longer to figure out which die is my d16 and which is my d14. Actually I can already be shaking the die in my hand as I add the modifiers out loud.

And to me part of the fun of rolling a critical or a fumble is seeing it instantly. The hoots and hollers when someone rolls a 20 or a 1. I want that feedback instantly. It's like playing at a casino or something.

Of course I'm not a big fan of "extra" attacks in such an abstract system either but that's a seperate issue. Regardless I think this was one of the selling points to some people for this game coming from 3rd and 4th edition (something I avoided) so I can houserule it. Not a big deal.

One option for dealing with the "more likely to roll a critical on d16 than d20 (without rolling a second die to even the odds) paradox" is to reduce the effectiveness of non-d20 criticals. Either reduce the critical die roll like 'reversed spells' (d6 becomes d4, d4 becomes d3, etc) - or perhaps even reduce the critical type (type 3 becomes type 2, type 2 becomes type 1, etc) This would be fairly simple to present on the character sheet attack line so it wouldn't involve extra lookups:

It was also likely simplify things if increased crit ranges (19-20, etc) only apply to d20 attacks.

And no crits on any die less than d16. ;)

***

I agree the whole concept of two weapon fighting in such an abstracted system is a bit sketchy - my experience from using two weapons in 'actual' fighting is that each of the two weapons just assume more 'defensive' duties to compensate for the lack of a shield. It does provide a bit more offensive flexibility, but it's certainly not like you're making twice as many attacks as sword 'n board. If shields provided +2 to AC, I'd be tempted to rule that two weapon fighters are +1 to hit, +1 to AC, but you need to have a 13 agility. (waived for halflings)

I agree the whole concept of two weapon fighting in such an abstracted system is a bit sketchy - my experience from using two weapons in 'actual' fighting is that each of the two weapons just assume more 'defensive' duties to compensate for the lack of a shield. It does provide a bit more offensive flexibility, but it's certainly not like you're making twice as many attacks as sword 'n board. If shields provided +2 to AC, I'd be tempted to rule that two weapon fighters are +1 to hit, +1 to AC, but you need to have a 13 agility. (waived for halflings)

Lately I've embraced this sort of ruling. Seen a few variations on this and it allows a player to feel like the Gray Mouser or Drizz't or whoever he has in mind but doesn't complicate things much, throw things out of balance or encourage it to become commonplace.

That said I love the halfling dual wield in this game, it's fun to me for some reason. Probably because it's so simple and quick itself.

I agree the whole concept of two weapon fighting in such an abstracted system is a bit sketchy - my experience from using two weapons in 'actual' fighting is that each of the two weapons just assume more 'defensive' duties to compensate for the lack of a shield. It does provide a bit more offensive flexibility, but it's certainly not like you're making twice as many attacks as sword 'n board. If shields provided +2 to AC, I'd be tempted to rule that two weapon fighters are +1 to hit, +1 to AC, but you need to have a 13 agility. (waived for halflings)

+d30 This is the best "solution". Thanks for reminding us that the combat system is abstract. Sometimes that is hard to remember.

I agree the whole concept of two weapon fighting in such an abstracted system is a bit sketchy - my experience from using two weapons in 'actual' fighting is that each of the two weapons just assume more 'defensive' duties to compensate for the lack of a shield. It does provide a bit more offensive flexibility, but it's certainly not like you're making twice as many attacks as sword 'n board. If shields provided +2 to AC, I'd be tempted to rule that two weapon fighters are +1 to hit, +1 to AC, but you need to have a 13 agility. (waived for halflings)

I agree the whole concept of two weapon fighting in such an abstracted system is a bit sketchy - my experience from using two weapons in 'actual' fighting is that each of the two weapons just assume more 'defensive' duties to compensate for the lack of a shield. It does provide a bit more offensive flexibility, but it's certainly not like you're making twice as many attacks as sword 'n board. If shields provided +2 to AC, I'd be tempted to rule that two weapon fighters are +1 to hit, +1 to AC, but you need to have a 13 agility. (waived for halflings)

I already +d30'd this but I think I would add that most people who go for two weapon fighting would feel slighted by this. I think the way to make it work is to allow the player to choose their "stance" so they can shift a +1 modifier between their attack bonus and their AC. That will make them feel like they are gaining something over the sword and boarders. (The actual modifier is negotiable.)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum